Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymmetric binary system Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asymmetric_binary_system

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Core desat 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetric binary system

All original research, no assertion that this has been peer reviewed or acknowledged by anyone apart from the article's author. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – At this point, based on the references found here, [1] [2]. I admit it looks like original research, but until someone with more knowledge in this field comments I am inclined to Keep . Shoessss | Chat 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more specific. I looked through the Google results you refer to, and all references seem to be either about a chemical system or binary systems in astronomy. The article under discussion is about a compression algorithm. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't appear to have noticed that your Google Web search turns up (a) Wikipedia mirrors, and (b) articles written by Jarek Duda or people whom Duda has sent this idea to, often citing this very Wikipedia article as a source. Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Also note that this article, like Chiral life concept (AfD discussion), is Jarek Duda, as Jarek Duda (talk · contribs), abusing Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance for documenting xyr ideas, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy. None of the things turned up by your Google Scholar search have anything to do with what is discussed in this article. Read them. They are simply talking about asymmetric binary mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy. One has to actually read the things that Google searches turn up in order to do research. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – One DID read the search results, as I stated it, may be original research. However, I do not have the knowledge, expertise or qualifications to make that assertion. Regarding the article itself, which I also read, I found that it was explaining the method of Asymmetric binary system and how it is formulated, which as you put it; “….mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy.” , could be applied. Hence my Keep which I still stand on Shoessss | Chat 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? Are you saying that your Google search turned up a peer-reviewed article that discusses the same concept (coding system / compression algorithm) as the Wikipedia article? Which article may that be then? Or are you saying that the Wikipedia article actually discusses binary systems in the chemical or astronomical sense? Or are you saying that you find some papers discussing asymmetric binary systems and that, as far as you know, they may be about the same thing as the Wikipedia article, and you say "keep" because of that? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes- is there a problem with that. Shoessss | Chat 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mixtures in chemistry and binary systems in astronomy have nothing at all to do with each other, let alone with what this article purports to discuss. One has only to read the articles themselves to see this. Please read the articles. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR per nom. and Uncle G. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no peer-reviewed references exist, as the author confirms at the top of Talk:Asymmetric binary system. Even when the article submitted is published, it is not notable until the concept is discussed by others. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? If does it work? Name? This morning has been finally put to publish the first compressor based on it fpaqa - it's great, patent-free alternative for arithmetic coding--Jarek Duda (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR As said above, it doesn't take much Googling to find, for instance here, that the author appears to be using Wikipedia (along with various forums) to promote his own paper. WP:SOAP applies. Even if it's the most brilliant compression system ever, it has no place here until a significant number of reliable third-party sources have reported it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a section on implementation. --Matt Mahoney (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing yourself as a source. Please review our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The places for publishing research and new ideas are journals, magazines, and books, just as the publications listed on the front page of the Department of Computer Science at Florida Institute of Technology all are. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Please come back when you've got a paper on this subject through a fact checking and peer review process and published. Please do not abuse Wikipedia to publish your own research. Wikipedia is not a place for doing an end run around the academic process. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are tertiary sources that come after academic publication. Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Observe that Matt (see PAQ) was very skeptic about it 3 weeks ago. If You still don't believe that it works, You can download the source, check it, compile and test. --Jarek Duda (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not about whether it works; that is completely irrelevant to the discussion here. As an unpublished and therefore unreviewed paper, this is original research that does not meet notability requirements. Maralia (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, per nom. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All research does not has has to be published in journals. As per my understanding of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia should not be the original source of new information without external citings. While, originally the page may not be having external ciings, I think the page now qualifies. Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.135.146 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC) — 122.162.135.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not just any external citings are acceptable: only reliable third-party published sources. I suspect votes are being solicited on the data compression forum circuit. See current off-wiki discussion: [3]. If this is the case, note the above template - AFDs are not votes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I understand Wikipedia policy and that this is not a vote. I agree that 'initially' this page was in violation of that policy. But as with all good ideas, this seems to have gained momentum and acceptance. I would also like to mention that this is not about an ideology, its about a mathematical algorithm, there is not much reason to abusively promote it. Wikipedia doesn't wants to be original source of new information, and with more external references it will not be. As for importance of the matter discussed on this page, check the FULL discussion that you mention http://groups.google.com/group/comp.compression/browse_frm/thread/fdc61014c8a3a971, most people there are 'notable'. Matt is the author of the 'best' compression algorithm till date, Mark Nelson (who initiated the discussion) is the author of the "The Data Compression Book", Thomas Richter is a member of JPEG committee. - Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info

Wikipedia doesn't base its inclusion criteria on who originated an idea or has been discussing it; only whether it has been published in reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed journals. Google Groups and similar threads, blogs and personal websites don't count. Besides "Jarek Duda" "asymmetric binary system" gets 87 Google hits, and none of them in Scholar or Books. It simply isn't (yet) very notable outside what appears to be a very small pond. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikipedia having a policy of "No recent research"? Yes, I agree that its new and not notable outside the small pool of people who know about this yet, but from a data compression perspective this algo seems interesting enough. If wikipedia needs it or not, thats for wikipedia to decide. - Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.137.225 (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. Per nom. sho y 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me it seems like people are cooking up one reason after another. First it was "NOR", then Notability, then 'reliable sources'. Or maybe just I am reading too much into it. Sachin Garg http://www.c10n.info
Delete as original research, and per Uncle G. Edison (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Captain panda 04:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Even the discussion in the cited discussion group recognises this is OR. BenWilliamson (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR, Notability, as we use it, and WP:RS are all the same thing here: we are not a place to publish research before the journals (use ArXiv for that). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of reliable sources indicates that this is probably original research. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.